Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31652267›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparative characterization of bacterial communities in geese consuming of different proportions of ryegrass.

Baodi Guo, Dianhui Li, Beibei Zhou, Yong Jiang, Hao Bai, Yang Zhang, Qi Xu, Wenming Zhao, Guohong Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Veterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Baodi GuoLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2656-2453
Dianhui LiLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.
Beibei ZhouLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.
Yong JiangLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.
Hao BaiJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, the Ministry of Education of China, Institutes of Agricultural Science and Technology Development, Yangzhou University, Jiangsu Yangzhou, China.
Yang ZhangLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.
Qi XuLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.
Wenming ZhaoLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.
Guohong ChenLaboratory of Animal Genetics and Rearing and Molecular Design of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, PR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Geese are extremely well-adapted to utilizing plant-derived roughage in their diet, so the grass must be added to commercial diets under intensive rearing systems. However, it is unclear whether the gut microbiota will change significantly when adding different proportions of ryegrass. In this study, 240 healthy male Yangzhou geese (28 days old) with similar body weights were randomly divided into four groups and fed different proportions grass (CK, whole commercial diets; EG1, ryegrass: commercial diets = 1.5:1; EG2, ryegrass: commercial diets = 2:1; EG3, ryegrass: commercial diets = 3:1) respectively. When the geese grew to 70 days old, their intestines were collected and high-throughput sequencing technology was performed to investigate the microbial diversity in the caecum of geese with different dietary supplements. There was no obvious change in the alpha diversity of gut microbiota of geese with ryegrass intake (P > 0.05) and the composition of dominant bacterium (including Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes) was also similar. However, the ratio between Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes was remarkably reduced with ryegrass intake (P < 0.05), and the relative abundance of 30 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) significantly differed. Additionally, the content of cellulose-degrading microbiota such as Ruminiclostridium and Ruminococcaceae UCG-010 were significantly increased in geese fed with increasing amounts of grass. Finally, the functional profiles of the goose gut microbiota were explored using the PICRUSt tool. Carbohydrate metabolism and amino acid metabolism were dominant metabolic pathways. Lipid metabolism was significantly increased in EG3 compared that in the CK group (P < 0.05). Interestingly, Turicibacter and Parasutterella may have affected abdominal fat deposition as grass intake increased. Taken together, although the diversity of bacterial communities was similar in geese fed with different proportions of ryegrass, cellulose-degrading microbiota (Ruminiclostridium and Ruminococcaceae UCG-010) were abundant and the lipid metabolic pathway was enriched, which may reduce abdominal fat accumulation in high-ryegrass fed geese.

Indexed as

Animal FeedLoliumAbdominal FatAnimalsBacteriaGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGeeseMale

Identifiers

PMID31652267
PMCPMC6814310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.